[11:2] [See below, p. 111.]
[11:3] i. pp. 444-485.
[11:4] [The subject is treated at length below, p. 142 sq.]
[12:1] I. p. 441.
[12:2] [On Hegesippus see below, pp. 34 sq, 42.]
[12:3] [On Justin Martyr see below, p. 43.]
[12:4] In I. p. 360, there is a foot-note, 'For the arguments of apologetic criticism the reader may be referred to Canon Westcott's work On the Canon pp. 112-139. Dr Westcott does not attempt to deny the fact that Justin's quotations are different from the text of our Gospels; but he accounts for his variations on grounds which are' ['seem to us' ed. 6] 'purely imaginary.' I can hardly suppose that our author had read the passage to which he refers. Otherwise the last sentence would doubtless have run thus, 'but he accounts for his variations by arguments which it would give me some trouble to answer.'
[13:1] II. p. 411.
[13:2] Our author himself refers to this saying for a wholly different purpose later on (II. p. 416).
[14:1] II. p. 408. Our author says, 'It is clear that Paul is referred to in the address to the Church of Ephesus: "And thou didst try them which say that they are Apostles and are not, and didst find them false."' He seems to forget what he himself has said (p. 395), 'No result of criticism rests upon a more secure basis … than the fact that the Apocalypse was written in A.D. 68, 69,' i.e., after St Paul's death. This theory moreover is directly at variance with the one definite fact which we know respecting the personal relations between the two Apostles; namely, that they gave to each other the right hands of fellowship (Gal. ii. 9). It is surprising therefore that this extravagant paradox should have been recently reproduced in an English review of high character.